Welcome to Gaia! ::

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius. 0.12738853503185 12.7% [ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant! 0.28343949044586 28.3% [ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis. 0.063694267515924 6.4% [ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore. 0.14649681528662 14.6% [ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball. 0.37898089171975 37.9% [ 119 ]
Total Votes:[ 314 ]
<< < 1 2 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 56 57 58 > >>
Intelligent design may be possible, but it doesn't belong in science class unless I missed some credible evidence it is a testable hypothesis. We have a category for it. It is called science fiction. That is because it has no basis in fact and it barely conforms to known ideas about the universe. Science fiction can get very in depth as any trekkie knows, but it still remains fiction.

The reality is that kids have a hard enough time understanding science itself. Now you toss some easy theories on top of it so they don't have to understand the hard s**t, and you have a problem. God, aliens, or Chuck Noris did it is an excuse not to learn, and it isn't even an answer science would accept. Even if some intelligence did create the universe that is just a step in science where no answers were actually made. If god did it then how does god do it and how does that work into universal laws. It isn't an answer, it is a cop out for the ignorant.

Intelligent design has a place in school even in certain scientific explorations. Things like psychology, anthropology, and cultural studies have people dedicated to studying how these stories and myths have shaped our present society. However, in pure logical scientific study they have no place. People who are fighting for them are fighting to keep the human race backwards and ignorant because it makes them feel more comfortable to think of humans as important rather than an odd biological infestation on a rock floating in a vast universe that could be wiped out of existence in a cosmic instant and nothing would even care.

Interestingly enough, the only thing this has changed is Ben Stein's reputation from rather intelligent semi iconic figure to stoopid boob who should take his place next to Paris Hilton where he belongs.
vipr230
A Confused Iguana
Lady_Imrahil
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.
I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd
In conclusion: Ken Miller is not a scientist.
Nor is he a catholic according to IDiots (creationists), can't believe in god and evolution eh?
At this point I would remind everyone that the makers of Expelled chose not to interview the highly influential Professor Miller but thought it would be fine interviewing careful but essential Dr Eugenie Scott — director of the NCSE which maintains the "Expelled Exposed" website — and infamously atheistic Professor Richard Dawkins.

Such a vocal and important critic of the scientific basis of creationism and Intelligent Design could not be seen to be a Christian in order for the thesis to fit.

Sadly, as my major contributions to this thread have been a 2000+ word "wall of text" and the linking of a two hour talk, I suspect I'm going to be tl;dr'd. Hahaha, wall of text, I have to write a 100+ page thesis at some point in the next 12-14 months
A Confused Iguana
vipr230
A Confused Iguana
Lady_Imrahil
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.
I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd
In conclusion: Ken Miller is not a scientist.
Nor is he a catholic according to IDiots (creationists), can't believe in god and evolution eh?
At this point I would remind everyone that the makers of Expelled chose not to interview the highly influential Professor Miller but thought it would be fine interviewing Dr Eugene Scott and Professor Richard Dawkins.

Such a vocal and important critic of the scientific basis of creationism and Intelligent Design could not be seen to be a Christian in order for the thesis to fit.

Sadly, as my major contributions to this thread have been a 2000+ word wall of text and the linking of a two hour talk, I suspect I'm going to be tl;dr'd.


Bah, I say. If it's 20,000 words long, I'd still read it.
How kind. It is nothing new, just a defence of naturalism and the showing the importance of testing from near first principles [the Problem of Induction and how science attempts to avoid it]. To date not one supporter of ID or Expelled has responded to a point raised.
ElectricTerra's avatar

Feral Kitten

5,400 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • First step to fame 200
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.
A Confused Iguana
How kind. It is nothing new, just a defence of naturalism and the showing the importance of testing from near first principles [the Problem of Induction and how science attempts to avoid it]. To date not one supporter of ID or Expelled has responded to a point raised.
Everyone benefits by what you have to say, Iguana. I am not sure what this is about or why the questions haven't been answered other than your ideas are a little over my head. Please do your best and teach us.
A Confused Iguana
How kind. It is nothing new, just a defence of naturalism and the showing the importance of testing from near first principles [the Problem of Induction and how science attempts to avoid it]. To date not one supporter of ID or Expelled has responded to a point raised.


Do you really expect them to? I'd read it but I'm working on my own 2000 word essay right now so I'd rather not read another ^^; Or at least not till after my final...

You know, I'm getting into writing this... I should ask Media for her take on it, see what a classics major thinks of my portrayal of Livy.
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.
Here are a few very nice videos that everyone should watch, around 7 minutes long so even people with short attention spans will find it easy to sit through.

A few images in the first video can be a little disturbing

God and DNA Made Easy

The Origin of Life Made Easy

Natural Selection Made Easy

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy
Aloha Loi Helena
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.


But that's just it, the false dichotomy is that you can't believe in god and evolution, clearly Miller shows that to be demonstrably false. Apparently you do as well, but no offense, you're not nearly as well known a scientist as Miller is ^^;
ElectricTerra's avatar

Feral Kitten

5,400 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • First step to fame 200
Aloha Loi Helena
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.
Is this Noora? Or Noora's daughter?
vipr230
Aloha Loi Helena
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.


But that's just it, the false dichotomy is that you can't believe in god and evolution, clearly Miller shows that to be demonstrably false. Apparently you do as well, but no offense, you're not nearly as well known a scientist as Miller is ^^;


Wait ... I not! crying Joking! I have been watching the Miller vid and it is still on ... still viewing/listening to it. If ID is like the Kansas plan to rid science of naturalistic explanations of science, then I don't agree with ID being scientific. I am just now hearing his rendition of the Dover trial and it is exhilerating to listen to him. I also like his joke about getting rid of organic chemistry. gonk It is so hard for me to understand!!!

Let me keep listen to it some more. He is talking about the fossil record at this point.
Aloha Loi Helena
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.
No one claims this. Though, I should pick my words with care. The late John Paul II — apologies if it were earlier — stated that the evolution of the body was not in contradiction with the teachings of the Church. Since Benedict XVI was appointed there has been a worrying shift in tone which lead to Professors Ken Miller, Laurence Krauss and Francisco Ayala writing an open letter to the pontiff. Again, apologies if this has been given a response but I am not aware of it. I hope the situation does not change from the position that John Paul II held.

The supposed incompatibility of religion and science is depressing given the history of thought and how many thinkers sought natural explanations as a way to expose the glory and majestic of their creator. Examining the history of Intelligent Design reveals that it is a vehicle designed to undermine the principles that makes science as successful as it is. I find it worrying that so many theists want to champion Intelligent Design when it amounts to no more than "God of the Gaps" thinking. "God of the Gaps" theology is weak and uninspiring; it only leaves itself open to being useless in the future: the gaps in human understanding will surely get smaller, making the need for the theology less and less. No, glorifying any designer in this fashion is prone to unravel. Surely the better approach would be to credit the designer with constructing the order and functioning of the universe in such a way so that life and the appearance of design springs out naturally. That strikes me as a far more sophisticated and complicated task.

The trend toward ID seems like bad science — well, non-science — and bad theology.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games